With the benefit cuts in full swing, and more to come, claimants face tough times not helped by mainstream media's constant GOvt fuelled propoganda to demonise the poor.
Example: Mrs A, 57 years old, lives on just £54.05p a week benefits. She has multiple health problems, is on morphine and constant pain. She has wrongly, been put into the ESA work related group, and has received a letter threatening her with benefit sanctions if she doesnt attend a job focussed interview which could take an hour. She cant even get there as she is in so much pain. She will have to pay for a taxi there and back from her meagre £54.05p a week income.
This Govt is sick to harrass people like this woman. Shame on them. Sometimes she feels driven to thinking of suicide. "Thats what the govt wants. They want us all to die either by us taking our own lives or dying slowly from the cold or lack of food." She says.

Example: a deaf man, Mr Y, aged 37, with health problems that affect his mobility, was on income support and incapacity benefit, now put in ESA work related group, asked repeatedly why he hasnt found work, but every employer he approaches turns him down because they say they cannot support a deaf person at work. It isnt his fault he is deaf, but he is made to feel he is at fault by the constant harrassment from the DWP.

Please supoort disabled and long term sick people - campaign on thier behalf, write to MP's of all parties, join disabled people against the cuts, attend the benefits justice summit in london._________________"injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere" Martin Luther king

The most prominent whistleblower to expose failings in the implementation of the Liverpool Care Pathway (LCP) has said that a Government inquiry into reports of poor care has not gone far enough.

Following the release of a report into the inquiry by Baroness Neuberger, which recommends the end of life protocol used across the NHS be phased out, Professor Patrick Pullicino, a Catholic consultant neurologist, said that fundamental points had still not been addressed.

Prof Pullicino made headlines prior to the inquiry when he said the care pathway was an “assisted death pathway” and it was “very likely many elderly patients who could live substantially longer are being killed by the LCP.”

Prof Pullicino said that the report, which was released yesterday, neglected to mention, “the risk of death in patients who were not at risk of dying but could be killed by the pathway.”

“The fact that there are well documented cases of patients being taken off the pathway and surviving over a year show that this is a real issue,” he said.

But the Bishops’ Conference Department of Christian Responsibility and Citizenship praised the report.

Archbishop Peter Smith of Southwark, who chairs the department and wrote to the Government last September calling for a “thorough and urgent investigation,” welcomed Baroness Neuberger’s recommendations.

He said: “It was in response to concerns raised by Catholics and by others about end of life care in England and Wales that I called for an enquiry into the use of the LCP. I welcome the report of Baroness Neuberger into the implementation of the LCP and the initial response to that report from the Government.”

Professor David Albert Jones, who authored evidence to the Neuberger inquiry on behalf of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales, said that in his personal opinion, he hoped the “radical” recommendations in the Neuberger report succeeded.

He said: “The report acknowledges that the Liverpool Care Pathway for the Dying Patient works well when ‘operated by well trained, well-resourced and sensitive clinical teams’. However, it finds evidence that the LCP is sometimes implemented badly and the report notes ‘the considerable body of evidence from relatives and carers which strongly suggests that care of dying older people is not always what it should be’.”

Professor Jones added that it was important that future end-of-life-care plans incorporated the positive aspects of the LCP and that dying patients should not be treated as if they are always curable.

Professor Pullicino also praised some aspects of the report including its emphasis on individualised care. He added: “The highlighting of the need for continued hydration and use of sedation and narcotics only where indicated and avoidance of overuse in end of life care is another important conclusion.”

Neuberger stops LCP
By Anna Sheinman, July 18, 2013
http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/109595/neuberger-stops-lcp
An end-of-life care process used by the NHS is to be scrapped after a review led by Baroness Julia Neuberger.
The peer, who is senior rabbi at West London Synagogue, recommended that the Liverpool Care Pathway be phased out over the next 12 months and replaced by a personalised end of life care plan.
Baroness Neuberger said: “Evidence given to the review has revealed too many serious cases of unacceptable care where the LCP has been incorrectly implemented. Examples include leaving patients without adequate nutrition, hydration and inappropriately sedated.”
The medical ethics expert at the Board of Deputies, Professor David Katz, praised Baroness Neuberger for the balance achieved in the report and emphasised the need for healthcare professionals to be trained in dealing with the needs of different groups, including Jews.
He also said that denying fluids to dying patients was of particular concern: “The only acceptable reason for discontinuing fluids is where there is evidence that it is causing harm and suffering.
“This needs to be made very explicit, and may be an example where our traditions are helpful not only to Jews, but also to others.”

Whitehall_Bin_Men wrote:

60,000 people condemned to death without the knowledge of their loved ones
How Nazi is that?
The barely believable 'Liverpool Care Pathway' to an early grave!

60,000 patients put on death pathway without being told but minister still says controversial end-of-life plan is 'fantastic'
Pathway involves the sick being sedated and usually denied nutrition and fluids
Families kept in the dark when doctors withdraw lifesaving treatment
Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt said pathway was a 'fantastic step forward'
Anti-euthanasia group said: ‘The Pathway is designed to finish people off double quick'

By Jason Groves, Daniel Martin and Steve Doughty

PUBLISHED: 22:36, 30 December 2012 | UPDATED: 01:44, 31 December 2012

Up to 60,000 patients die on the Liverpool Care Pathway each year without giving their consent, shocking figures revealed yesterday.

A third of families are also kept in the dark when doctors withdraw lifesaving treatment from loved ones.

Despite the revelations, Jeremy Hunt last night claimed the pathway was a ‘fantastic step forward’.

In comments that appeared to prejudge an official inquiry into the LCP, the Health Secretary said ‘one or two’ mistakes should not be allowed to discredit the entire end-of-life system.

But Elspeth Chowdharay-Best of Alert, an anti-euthanasia group, said: ‘The Pathway is designed to finish people off double quick. It is a lethal pathway.

‘Mr Hunt has made a nonsense of the claim of his ministers that there is going to be an independent inquiry.’

The review follows a public outcry over a string of disturbing cases, highlighted by this paper, in which patients or their families were ignored.

The pathway involves withdrawal of lifesaving treatment, with the sick sedated and usually denied nutrition and fluids. Death typically takes place within 29 hours.

The 60,000 figure comes from a joint study by the Marie Curie Palliative Care Institute in Liverpool and the Royal College of Physicians.

Finished off: Those placed on the death pathway typically die within 29 hours of vital treatment being withdrawn. (Posed by model)

It found many patients were not consulted despite being conscious when doctors decided on their care.

Records from 178 hospitals also show that thousands of people on the pathway are left to die in pain because nurses do not do enough to keep them comfortable while drugs are administered.

An estimated 130,000 patients are put on the pathway each year.

Concerns have been raised that clinical judgments are being skewed by incentives for hospitals to use the pathway.

Health trusts are thought to have been rewarded with an extra £30million for putting more patients on the LCP.

Critics say it is a self-fulfilling prophecy because there is no scientific method of predicting when death will come.

Norman Lamb, the care services minister, launched a review in November, saying there had been too many cases of families not being consulted.

But Mr Hunt yesterday suggested that concerns about the system were relatively minor compared with its benefits.

Fatal: The pathway involves withdrawal of lifesaving treatment, with the sick sedated and usually denied nutrition and fluids. (Posed by model)

Disturbing: A study found many patients were not consulted despite being conscious when doctors decided on their care. (Posed by model)

‘It’s a fantastic step forward, the Liverpool Care Pathway, and we need to be unabashed about that because it’s basically designed to bring hospice-style care to terminally-ill people in hospitals,’ he told LBC Radio:

‘I would be very sad if as a result of something that is a big step forward going wrong in one or two cases we discredited the concept that we need to do a lot better to give people dignity in their final hours because it’s something we haven’t done well.

‘Lots of people don’t want to die with lots of tubes going in and out of their body – they actually want to die in a dignified way.’

He added: ‘What should never happen is that people should be put on to that care pathway without patients being fully in the loop and their families and relatives being fully in the loop as well.’

Controversial: Jeremy Hunt said the death pathway gave the ill 'dignity' in their final hours

The national audit by Marie Curie and the RCP examined a representative sample of 7,058 deaths between April and June last year. The figures were scaled up to give a national picture.

It found that in 44 per cent of cases when conscious patients were placed on the pathway, there was no record that the decision had been discussed with them.

For 22 per cent, there was no evidence that comfort and safety had been maintained while medication was administered.

And it also revealed that one in three families did not receive a leaflet to explain the process.

The LCP system was developed in a Liverpool hospital and has spread across the NHS over the past four years. The review is due to report in the new year.[/b]

#1) The March 2009 U.N. Population Division policy brief....
"What would it take to accelerate fertility decline in the least developed countries?"

#2) Microsoft's Bill Gates....

"The world today has 6.8 billion people. That's heading up to about nine billion. Now if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 percent."

#3) Barack Obama's top science advisor, John P. Holdren....

"A program of sterilizing women after their second or third child, despite the relatively greater difficulty of the operation than vasectomy, might be easier to implement than trying to sterilize men.
The development of a long-term sterilizing capsule that could be implanted under the skin and removed when pregnancy is desired opens additional possibilities for coercive fertility control. The capsule could be implanted at puberty and might be removable, with official permission, for a limited number of births."

#4) George W. Bush's science advisor Paul Ehrlich....

"Each person we add now disproportionately impacts on the environment and life-support systems of the planet."

#5) U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg....

"Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of."

#6) A United Nations Population Fund report entitled "Facing a Changing World: Women, Population and Climate"....

"No human is genuinely 'carbon neutral,' especially when all greenhouse gases are figured into the equation."

#7) David Rockefeller....

"The negative impact of population growth on all of our planetary ecosystems is becoming appallingly evident."

#8) Jacques Cousteau....

"In order to stabilize world population, we must eliminate 350,000 people per day."

#9) CNN Founder Ted Turner....

"A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal."

#10) Dave Foreman, Earth First Co-Founder....

"My three main goals would be to reduce human population to about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure and see wilderness, with it’s full complement of species, returning throughout the world."

#11) Prince Phillip, the Duke of Edinburgh....

"If I were reincarnated I would wish to be returned to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels."

#12) David Brower, first Executive Director of the Sierra Club....

"Childbearing [should be] a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license ... All potential parents [should be] required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing."

#13) Planned Parenthood Founder Margaret Sanger....

"The most merciful thing that a family does to one of its infant members is to kill it."

"So why don’t we make ourselves the last generation on earth? If we would all agree to have ourselves sterilized then no sacrifices would be required — we could party our way into extinction!"

#16) Thomas Ferguson, former official in the U.S. State Department Office of Population Affairs....

"There is a single theme behind all our work–we must reduce population levels. Either governments do it our way, through nice clean methods, or they will get the kinds of mess that we have in El Salvador, or in Iran or in Beirut. Population is a political problem. Once population is out of control, it requires authoritarian government, even fascism, to reduce it…."

#17) Mikhail Gorbachev....

"We must speak more clearly about sexuality, contraception, about abortion, about values that control population, because the ecological crisis, in short, is the population crisis. Cut the population by 90% and there aren't enough people left to do a great deal of ecological damage."

#18) John Guillebaud, professor of family planning at University College London....

"The effect on the planet of having one child less is an order of magnitude greater than all these other things we might do, such as switching off lights. An extra child is the equivalent of a lot of flights across the planet."

#19) Professor of Biology at the University of Texas at Austin Eric R. Pianka....

"This planet might be able to support perhaps as many as half a billion people who could live a sustainable life in relative comfort. Human populations must be greatly diminished, and as quickly as possible to limit further environmental damage."

#20) U.S. Secretary Of State Hillary Clinton....

"This year, the United States renewed funding of reproductive healthcare through the United Nations Population Fund, and more funding is on the way. The U.S. Congress recently appropriated more than $648 million in foreign assistance to family planning and reproductive health programs worldwide. That’s the largest allocation in more than a decade – since we last had a Democratic president, I might add."

#21) Clinton adviser Nina Fedoroff....

"We need to continue to decrease the growth rate of the global population; the planet can't support many more people."

#22) The first of the "new 10 commandments" on the Georgia Guidestones....

"Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature."_________________'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.

'During remarks that she made for the 15th Anniversary of the International Conference on Population and Development, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced the launch of a new program that according to Clinton will now become the centerpiece of U.S. foreign policy. This new program is known as the Global Health Initiative, and it is being incredibly well-funded at a time when the U.S. government is drowning in debt. According to Clinton, 63 billion dollars will be spent by the U.S. to prevent pregnancies and to improve "family planning" services around the globe over the next six years. In other words, the new centerpiece of U.S. foreign policy is all about eugenics and population control.

The following is an excerpt from Clinton's remarks....

In addition to new funding, we’ve launched a new program that will be the centerpiece of our foreign policy, the Global Health Initiative, which commits us to spending $63 billion over six years to improve global health by investing in efforts to reduce maternal and child mortality, prevent millions of unintended pregnancies, and avert millions of new HIV infections, among other goals. This initiative will employ a new approach to fighting disease and promoting health.

You see, whenever the global elite want to launch another new eugenics operation, they announce it as a great "humanitarian program" that will save millions of lives. But their real goal is to control the population and prevent millions of lives from being born.

This was also reflected in Clinton's remarks about the United Nations Population Fund. The United Nations Population Fund has been promoting abortion, forced sterilization and radical population control measures around the globe for decades, and Hillary Clinton was super excited to talk about how the U.S. government recently renewed funding for that organization....

This year, the United States renewed funding of reproductive healthcare through the United Nations Population Fund, and more funding is on the way. (Applause.) The U.S. Congress recently appropriated more than $648 million in foreign assistance to family planning and reproductive health programs worldwide. That’s the largest allocation in more than a decade – since we last had a Democratic president, I might add. (Applause.)

So what exactly is so bad about the United Nations Population Fund?

Not only does the United Nations Population Fund support and fund the forced abortion and infanticide of China's "one child" program, they also promote abortion, forced sterilization and brutal eugenics programs throughout the developing world.

To learn much more about the United Nations Population Fund, please watch the four short videos below. They will leave you absolutely stunned....

The truth is that the United Nations Population Fund always has been and always will be about eugenics.

And thanks to Barack Obama, it is being funded with millions of U.S. taxpayer dollars.

But that wasn't enough for Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, so they have launched this new Global Health Initiative which will now be the "centerpiece" of U.S. foreign policy.

63 billion U.S. taxpayer dollars will be spent over the next six years to promote abortion, sterilization and "family planning" around the globe.

Sadly enough, there are people who are actually convinced that they will save the environment by reducing the population. They think that while promoting abortion and sterilization may not be the most pleasant thing to do, it must be done for the good of the planet.

Of course they are dead wrong, but the "true believers" do not understand this. All they know is that they have to keep all of the brown and black women in other countries from having babies so that we can save the planet.

We live in a world that is becoming more evil all the time. Every person on this planet has a fundamental right to have as many children as they want, but the truth is that this right is being stripped away from an increasing number of people.

We live at a time when even our most fundamental liberties as human beings are under attack. Let us hope that America wakes up and starts saying "no" to these kinds of policies.'_________________'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.

The Government has been accused of misleading the public over the introduction of a new in vitro fertilisation (IVF) technique that some experts believe will result in the birth of “genetically modified babies”.

Leading scientists, including Lord Winston, an early pioneer of fertility treatment, have criticised the Department of Health for trying to play down a process that will for the first time allow the alteration of the DNA of future generations.

They argue that the Government has redefined the term “genetic modification” (GM) to exclude specifically a controversial technique that will result in babies inheriting genetic material from three individuals.

The move, buried within a Department of Health document published last week, is designed to take the sting out of hostility towards mitochondrial donation – a process that aims to avoid the certain inherited diseases being passed on by using healthy mitochondria (microscopic structures in the cell) taken from a donor egg or embryo. Opponents believe that using the healthy donor mitochondria will result in “three-parent embryos” and could usher in an era of “designer babies” and “genetically modified children”.

The Government admits it has decided to adopt “a working definition [of ‘GM’] for the purpose of taking forward these regulations” but scientists believe that the redefinition of GM is dishonest. They also warn it could undermine public trust in medical experts arguing for its introduction in the UK, the only country where it will be permitted in law if legislation is passed.

Lord Winston told The Independent: “The Government seems to have come to the right decision but used bizarre justification. Of course mitochondrial transfer is genetic modification and this modification is handed down the generations. It is totally wrong to compare it with a blood transfusion or a transplant and an honest statement might be more sensible and encourage public trust.”

Ted Morrow, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Sussex, was equally scathing about the new definition of GM, which specifically excludes alterations to human mitochondrial genes or any other genetic material that exists outside the chromosomes in the nucleus of the cell.

“My impression is the Government is doing all it can to contain and define these kinds of terms in ways that favour mitochondrial replacement being introduced as an uncontroversial therapy,” Dr Morrow said.

“They push the idea that mitochondrial DNA does nothing more than regenerate more mitochondria, which are nothing more than cellular batteries, and that mitochondrial genes don’t encode traits relevant to personal identity and so on,” he added.

David King, from the pressure group Human Genetics Alert, said the Government is “playing PR games based on very dubious science” because any changes to the mitochondrial genes will amount to genetic modification. “Their restriction of the term to nuclear inheritable changes is clearly political. They don’t want people like me saying that they are legalising GM babies,” Dr King said.

Mitochondria are the tiny “power-packs” of the cells that generate metabolic energy from glucose. They are under the control of 37 mitochondrial genes which exist as a separate DNA molecule outside the nucleus of the cell.

About one in every 6,500 babies born each year is affected by inherited defects in the genes of the mitochondria. Serious mitochondrial diseases are painfully debilitating and cause long-term ill health, low quality of life and premature death. The Government is under pressure to allow mitochondrial donation as part of IVF treatment to give affected women the opportunity of having biological children who will be free of the condition.

The technique involves taking the healthy mitochondria of a donor egg or embryo and using them to replace the defective mitochondria. The resulting embryo will have genetic material from the two women in addition to the nuclear DNA from a man. Although mitochondrial DNA accounts for less than 0.2 per cent of the genome, the technique is controversial because it will alter the genetic make-up of future generations.

The Health Department accepts the germ-line of future generations will be altered, but it insists, in its official response to the public consultation published last week, that this does not amount to genetic modification. “There is no universally agreed definition of ‘genetic modification’ in humans – people who have organ transplants, blood donations or even gene therapy are not generally regarded as being ‘genetically modified’,” the response says.

Britain is on the brink of becoming a
nation permanently divided between
rich and poor, according to the Social
Mobility and Child Poverty Commission
in its second annual state of the nation
report.
The 335-page document is likely to be a
reference point against which the
government’s anti-poverty record will
be judged, and to feature strongly in
opposition party manifestos for the
2015 general election.
The report says all three main
Westminster political parties are
lamentably failing to be frank with the
electorate about the fact there is no
chance of meeting the government’s
statutory child poverty target by 2020.
It also predicts that 2010-2020 will be
the first decade since records began that
saw a rise in absolute poverty – defined
as a household in which income is
below 60% of median earnings. A rise
from 2.6 million households in absolute
poverty to 3.5 million is now expected.
The chair of the commission, the former
Labour cabinet minister Alan Milburn,
said: “Muddling through will not do
when the mismatch between needs and
anti-poverty government policies are
widening.”
Asked whether the government had
responded to his first report, he said: “It
is like water from the stone. Our plea is
not just to the current parties of
government … They are great at talking
the talk, the issue is whether they can
walk the walk. The policies lack the
scale to move the dial.”

Theres a meeting at the houses of Parliamnet on Tues oct 29th 6.30pm
hosted by John McDonell on the increasing inequality in Britain.
A report back will be on this forum shortly._________________"injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere" Martin Luther king

'President Obama’s top science and technology advisor John P. Holdren co-authored a 1977 book in which he advocated the formation of a “planetary regime” that would use a “global police force” to enforce totalitarian measures of population control, including forced abortions, mass sterilization programs conducted via the food and water supply, as well as mandatory bodily implants that would prevent couples from having children.

The concepts outlined in Holdren’s 1977 book Ecoscience, which he co-authored with close colleagues Paul Ehrlich and Anne Ehrlich, were so shocking that a February 2009 Front Page Magazine story on the subject was largely dismissed as being outlandish because people couldn’t bring themselves to believe that it could be true.

It was only when another Internet blog obtained the book and posted screenshots that the awful truth about what Holdren had actually committed to paper actually began to sink in.

This issue is more prescient than ever because Holdren and his colleagues are now at the forefront of efforts to combat “climate change” through similarly insane programs focused around geoengineering the planet. As we reported in April, Holdren recently advocated “Large-scale geoengineering projects designed to cool the Earth,” such as “shooting pollution particles into the upper atmosphere to reflect the sun’s rays,” which many have pointed out is already occurring via chemtrails.

Ecoscience discusses a number of ways in which the global population could be reduced to combat what the authors see as mankind’s greatest threat – overpopulation. In each case, the proposals are couched in sober academic rhetoric, but the horrifying foundation of what Holdren and his co-authors are advocating is clear. These proposals include;

- Forcibly and unknowingly sterilizing the entire population by adding infertility drugs to the nation’s water and food supply.

- Legalizing “compulsory abortions,” ie forced abortions carried out against the will of the pregnant women, as is common place in Communist China where women who have already had one child and refuse to abort the second are kidnapped off the street by the authorities before a procedure is carried out to forcibly abort the baby.

- Babies who are born out of wedlock or to teenage mothers to be forcibly taken away from their mother by the government and put up for adoption. Another proposed measure would force single mothers to demonstrate to the government that they can care for the child, effectively introducing licensing to have children.

- Implementing a system of “involuntary birth control,” where both men and women would be mandated to have an infertility device implanted into their body at puberty and only have it removed temporarily if they received permission from the government to have a baby.

- Permanently sterilizing people who the authorities deem have already had too many children or who have contributed to “general social deterioration”.

- Formally passing a law that criminalizes having more than two children, similar to the one child policy in Communist China.

- This would all be overseen by a transnational and centralized “planetary regime” that would utilize a “global police force” to enforce the measures outlined above. The “planetary regime” would also have the power to determine population levels for every country in the world....'_________________'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.

The Adam Smith Institute is now willing to argue that those on benefits are genetically different to the rest of us

POSTED ON FEBRUARY 28 2016

The Guardian has noted that:

More than 85% of fraud allegations made by the public over the last five years were false, according to figures obtained by the Observer.

A freedom of information request to the Department for Work and Pensions discloses that between 2010 and 2015 the government closed 1,041,219 alleged cases of benefit fraud put forward by the public. Insufficient or no evidence of fraud was discovered in 887,468 of these. In 2015 alone, of the 153,038 cases closed by the DWP’s Fraud and Error Service, 132,772 led to no action.

In this context comment from Owen Smith, the shadow work and pensions secretary who I hold in high regard, seems appropriate. He said:

Where there are abuses of the system they should be dealt with swiftly. However, the government’s constant attempts to paint honest people – like low-paid workers relying on tax credits and universal credit – as ‘skivers’ is creating a hostile and accusatory environment. The Tories should view these results with shame and pledge to turn the page on their divisive rhetoric.

I doubt that they will. Take this from a book review by Andrew Sabisky for the Adam Smith Institute this January:

The Welfare Trait has thus far attracted little media attention. This is perhaps a mercy. Were it to do so, its author, Dr Adam Perkins, would no doubt be forced to confront a howling hate mob outside his office twenty-four hours a day. Perhaps he would even have to move to an East Asian university, which these days is the usual route taken by European eccentrics (such as Nick Land and Neven Sesardic) who are determined to make fools of themselves in public by uttering unpalatable truths.

Painstakingly, Perkins constructs his core argument: that the welfare state, the foundational institution of modern Britain (the Church of England having sadly declined), contains the seeds of its own eventual destruction. A large body of evidence, which Perkins reviews, supports the intuitive idea that habitual welfare claimants tend to be less conscientious and agreeable than the average person. Such habitual claimants also tend to reproduce at higher rates than the general population, a pattern found across nations and time periods. They also seem to adjust their fertility in response to changes in the generosity of welfare provision, having fewer children in times of austerity and more when governments turn on the spigot marked “spending”.

Over time, therefore, the work motivation of the general population is lowered. This occurs through both genetic and environmental channels. Personality traits are substantially heritable (meaning that a decent percentage of the variation in these traits is due to naturally occurring genetic variation). Given this fact, habitual welfare claimants with employment-resistant personalities are likely to have offspring with similar personalities.

What you see in this is the deliberate construction of an argument that those on benefits are genetically different from other people. The consequences that follow are inevitable and were all too apparent in the 1930s. And this comes from a UK think tank much beloved for Tory politicians.

Worry, a great deal.

*
68 Responses to “The Adam Smith Institute is now willing to argue that those on benefits are genetically different to the rest of us”

Tim says:
February 28 2016 at 11:42 am
Chilling. I did this piece about disability hate propaganda four years ago:

How things are unfolding are indeed comparable to the 1930s. Unfortunately, some people demand to see tanks, swastikas and goose-stepping armies before they will recognise that.

As a country, we should be very concerned about where we are heading.

Daniel Sutton says:
February 28 2016 at 10:58 pm
This has long been the Tory attitude. Churchill attended Eugenics conferences and believed absolutely in a cast society driven by apparent genetically superior social betters.

B S Ashworth says:
February 28 2016 at 11:07 pm
It has made me almost physically sick to read, but I will get to the end of this article. One thing that is particularly nauseating is the slowness of the EU process which is supposed to be coming to our rescue — it gives Cameron plenty of time to get the human rights laws changed for the UK, and to inflict as much damage to the vulnerable as he pleases.

Andrew Dickie says:
February 28 2016 at 11:55 am
Sounds as though the Adam Smith Institute has been infected by Lysenkoism! Some irony, considering Lysenko “canonised” by Stalin, whose favourite scientist he was.

I’m sorry to say that this sounds like nonsense on stilts, worthy of the scientists in Gulliver’s Travels who sought to extract sunshine from cucumbers.

More directly , it is *, and extremely dangerous * at that. We really DO seem to be replaying the 1929 to 1933 and beyond scenario, so WHERE is our FDR?

None other than William Beveridge, the architect of the post-1945 welfare state, was highly active in the eugenics movement and said that "those men who through general defects are unable to fill such a whole place in industry are to be recognized as unemployable. They must become the acknowledged dependents of the State... but with complete and permanent loss of all citizen rights - including not only the franchise but civil freedom and fatherhood". A belief in eugenics was certainly not confined to the jackbooted far right.

The eugenics movement Britain wants to forget
In the first of a three-part series to mark disability history month, Victoria Brignell looks back at the way the UK and USA have treated disabled people and uncovers a history that both countries would prefer to forget.
BY VICTORIA BRIGNELL
http://www.newstatesman.com/society/2010/12/british-eugenics-disabled

Britain and America are two countries that, in recent years, have led the world in attempting to give disabled people rights and equality. During his presidency, George Bush Senior was proud to sign the Americans with Disabilities Act while the 1995 Disability Discrimination Act has gradually transformed the lives of disabled people in the UK. It may appear on the surface that the UK and USA have nothing in common with Nazi Germany, a regime that is estimated to have killed 200,000 disabled people and forcibly sterilised twice that number.

However, there is a dark side to the history of the two partners in the "special relationship" that has quietly been forgotten and swept under the carpet. It is a history that is deeply uncomfortable, disturbing and shameful and which seems to contradict the values America and Britain claim to uphold. This makes it even more vital that light is shone upon this history. Even if it is painful to do so, the past must be confronted and acknowledged.

This story begins 150 years ago. In 1859 Charles Darwin published his groundbreaking book Origin of Species which expounded his theory of evolution by natural selection. It wasn't long before scientists and political theorists began to apply Darwin's theory to human beings. With the spread of ideas about "the survival of the fittest", social Darwinists started to question the wisdom of providing care to the "weak" on the grounds this would enable people to live and reproduce who were not meant to survive. They feared that offering medical treatment and social services to disabled people would undermine the natural struggle for existence and lead to the degeneration of the human race.

Such views took hold not only in Germany but also particularly strongly in America and Britain. The existence of disabled people was increasingly seen in the UK and USA as a threat to social progress. Darwin himself wrote in his 1871 treatise, The Descent of Man, "We civilised men.... do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick.. .Thus the weak members of society propagate their kind."

It was a British man, not a German, who first came up with the term eugenics in 1883. Francis Galton was a cousin of Charles Darwin and he became obsessed with Origin of Species, especially its chapter on the breeding of domestic animals. This inspired him to spend much of his life studying the variations in human ability. He wrote: "The question was then forced upon me. Could not the race of men be similarly improved? Could not the undesirables be got rid of and the desirables multiplied?".

Galton was convinced a person's mental and physical abilities, like the plant and animal traits described by Darwin, were essentially inherited from one's parents. He grew concerned that eminent British people were marrying late and having too few children. Galton wrote in his 1869 book Hereditary Genius: "Let us do what we can to encourage the multiplication of the races best fitted to invent, and conform to, a high and generous civilisation, and not, out of mistaken instinct of giving support to the weak, prevent the incoming of strong and hearty individuals."

Galton argued that early marriage between healthy, mentally strong families should be encouraged by financial incentives, and reproduction by the "feeble-minded" should be curtailed. In his mind, superior mental and physical capabilities were advantageous not only to an individual but essential for the well-being of society as a whole. To try to spread his ideas, he even wrote a novel Kantsaywhere, about a society ruled by a Eugenic College that followed a eugenic religion designed to breed fitter, more intelligent humans. Galton's views were not regarded as eccentric or offensive at the time. Far from it. In fact, he received many awards during his career. He was made a fellow of the Royal Society in 1860 and was knighted shortly before he died.

Galton's writings played a key role in launching the eugenics movement in the UK and America. Supporters of eugenics called for government policies to improve the biological quality of the human race through selective parenthood. They linked physical and learning disabilities to a range of social problems including crime, vagrancy, alcoholism, prostitution and unemployment. Eugenics quickly gained many backers on both sides of the Atlantic, including leading politicians and opinion formers.

It wasn't just figures on the extreme right of politics who backed the eugenics philosophy. Some of British socialism's most celebrated names were among the champions of eugenics - Sidney and Beatrice Webb (the founders of the Fabian Society), Harold Laski, John Maynard Keynes, even the New Statesman and the Manchester Guardian. They hoped that a eugenic approach could build up the strong section of the population and gradually remove the weak. In July 1931, the New Statesman asserted: "The legitimate claims of eugenics are not inherently incompatible with the outlook of the collectivist movement. On the contrary, they would be expected to find their most intransigent opponents amongst those who cling to the individualistic views of parenthood and family economics."

Many early left-wing thinkers wanted government to direct social policy towards "improving" the human race by discouraging reproduction among those sections of society deemed to have undesirable genes. Supporters of state planning often found the idea of a planned genetic future attractive. As Adrian Wooldridge, author of Measuring the Mind: Education and Psychology in England 1860-1990, comments: "The Webbs supported eugenic planning just as fervently as town planning." Beatrice Webb declared eugenics to be "the most important question of all" while her husband remarked that "no eugenicist can be a laissez-faire individualist".

Similarly, George Bernard Shaw wrote: "The only fundamental and possible socialism is the socialisation of the selective breeding of man." Bertrand Russell proposed that the state should issue colour-coded "procreation tickets" to prevent the gene pool of the elite being diluted by inferior human beings. Those who decided to have children with holders of a different-coloured ticket would be punished with a heavy fine. HG Wells praised eugenics as the first step towards the elimination of "detrimental types and characteristics" and the "fostering of desirable types" instead.

None other than William Beveridge, the architect of the post-1945 welfare state, was highly active in the eugenics movement and said that "those men who through general defects are unable to fill such a whole place in industry are to be recognized as unemployable. They must become the acknowledged dependents of the State... but with complete and permanent loss of all citizen rights - including not only the franchise but civil freedom and fatherhood". A belief in eugenics was certainly not confined to the jackbooted far right.

As the end of the 19th century approached, eugenicists were becoming increasingly influential in British politics. A Royal Commission on the Blind, Deaf and Dumb concluded in 1889 that intermarriage between these groups was to be strongly discouraged. Its report was based upon advice from Alexander Graham Bell, the inventor of the telephone, who had warned in his 1883 work Memoir upon the Formation of a Deaf Variety of the Human Race that the "passions of the deaf and dumb are undoubtedly strong". In 1896 a pressure group entitled the National Association for the Care and Control of the Feeble Minded was set up in Britain to bring about the lifetime segregation of disabled people. Its campaigning reached its peak in the run-up to the 1910 general election.

Advocates of eugenics made significant advances during the Edwardian period. In 1907, the Eugenics Education Society was founded in Britain to campaign for sterilisation and marriage restrictions for the weak to prevent the degeneration of Britain's population. A year later, Sir James Crichton-Brown, giving evidence before the 1908 Royal Commission on the Care and Control of the Feeble-Minded, recommended the compulsory sterilisation of those with learning disabilities and mental illness, describing them as "our social rubbish" which should be "swept up and garnered and utilised as far as possible". He went on to complain, "We pay much attention to the breeding of our horses, our cattle, our dogs and poultry, even our flowers and vegetables; surely it's not too much to ask that a little care be bestowed upon the breeding and rearing of our race". Crichton-Brown was in distinguished company. In a memo to the prime minister in 1910, Winston Churchill cautioned, "The multiplication of the feeble-minded is a very terrible danger to the race".

In 2012, athletes from around the world will assemble in London for the Paralympic Games, a global event which celebrates the talents and achievements of disabled people. However, a century earlier, in 1912, London was the setting for an international gathering with a very different and more sinister agenda - the first International Eugenics Conference. Organised by the British Eugenics Education Society and dedicated to Galton who had died the year before, 400 delegates attended including illustrious figures such as Winston Churchill (who was then First Lord of the Admiralty), Lord Balfour and a number of European ambassadors.

Charles Darwin's son, Major Leonard Darwin, presided at the conference. In the run up to the First World War, he lobbied the British government to establish flying squads of scientists, with the power of arrest, who would travel around the country identifying the "unfit". Those classified as such would be segregated in special colonies or sterilised.

The eugenics campaign continued to gain momentum in the interwar years. Membership of the British Eugenics Society reached its peak during the 1930s. The 1934 report of the Departmental Committee on Sterilisation chaired by Lord Brock recommended legislation to ensure the 'voluntary' sterilisation of 'mentally defective women'.

Supporters of eugenics in Parliament included the Labour MP Will Crooks who described disabled people as "like human vermin" who "crawl about doing absolutely nothing, except polluting and corrupting everything they touch". A bill for the compulsory sterilisation of certain categories of "mental patient" was proposed in Parliament in 1931 by Labour MP Archibald Church. He claimed it was necessary to stop the reproduction of those "who are in every way a burden to their parents, a misery to themselves and in my opinion a menace to the social life of the community". Although such legislation was never actually passed in Britain, this did not prevent many sterilisations being carried out under various forms of coercion.

Eugenics still received backing in eminent circles in Britain until well into the 1940s. Leading economist John Maynard Keynes served on the governing council of the Eugenics Society and was its director from 1937 to 1944. Even in 1946, Keynes was calling eugenics "the most important and significant branch of sociology". On the evening that the House of Commons debated the Beveridge Report, Beveridge himself spoke at a meeting of eugenicists at the Mansion House.

While a belief in eugenics is now largely a thing of the past, the values underpinning it have not gone away. Only 25 years ago, a British MP was prepared to publicly voice the view that a disabled child was an unnecessary drain on society's resources. During a House of Commons debate on abortion in 1985, an MP asserted that to abort a "handicapped" foetus could save the country £1 million over the course of a lifetime.

Ben Van Der Merwe 10th January 2018 7 min read
A eugenics conference held annually at University College London by an honorary professor, the London Conference on Intelligence, is dominated by a secretive group of white supremacists with neo-Nazi links, London Student can exclusively reveal.

The conference has taken place at UCL four times since its inception in 2014, and now even boasts its own YouTube channel bearing the UCL logo.

UCL have told London Student that they are investigating the conference. A spokesperson said: “We are an institution that is committed to free speech but also to combatting racism and sexism in all forms.”

UCL professor David Colquhoun expressed disbelief that the university would host such “pseudoscience” and stated that the organiser, Professor James Thompson, “clearly doesn’t understand genetics.”

“The actual genetic difference between humans, with respect to race or sex, is absolutely miniscule compared to what they have in common,” he told London Student.

Among the speakers and attendees over the last four years are a self-taught geneticist who argues in favour of child rape, multiple white supremacists, and ex-board member of the Office for Students Toby Young.

A central figure in the London Conference on Intelligence (LCI) is the white nationalist, extremist Richard Lynn, who has called for the “phasing out” of the “populations of incompetent cultures.” Lynn, who is President of the Ulster Institute for Social Research (UISR), spoke at the conference 2015 and 2016, along with four of the six members of the UISR’s Academic Advisory Council.

Six members of the current board, including editor-in-chief Gerhard Meisenberg, spoke at both the 2015 and 2016 conferences, while a further 16 LCI speakers have written for the journal in recent years. In total, 82% of those who spoke at both 2015 and 2016 conferences are directly associated with either UISR or Mankind Quarterly.

The UISR is bankrolled by Lynn and Meisenberg’s Pioneer Fund, a Southern Poverty Law Centre-listed hate group founded by Nazi sympathisers with the purpose of promoting “racial betterment”.

Beneficiaries of the fund include a magazine devoted to a “penetrating inquiry into every aspect of the Jewish Question,” and Jared Taylor’s American Renaissance, whose conferences have hosted prominent far-right figures Richard Spencer (an white supremancist who gained prominence after Trump’s election), Nick Griffin (ex-leader of the British National Party), and David Duke (another white supremacist, and former Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan).

Helmuth Nyborg, a member of the UISR Academic Advisory Council, gave a lecture at last year’s American Renaissance conference which argued that Denmark’s gene pool would suffer from immigration from the Middle East. Nyborg spoke at the LCI in both 2015 and 2016. He has written numerous articles for Mankind Quarterly as well as a book for the UISR memorializing the former head of the Pioneer Fund, white nationalist J. P. Rushton.

James Thompson, the honorary UCL academic who acts as the host of the conference, is a member of the UISR Academic Advisory Council. His political leanings are betrayed by his public Twitter account, where he follows prominent white supremacists including Richard Spencer (who follows him back), Virginia Dare, American Renaissance, Brett Stevens, the Traditional Britain Group, Charles Murray and Jared Taylor.

Thompson is a frequent contributor to the Unz Review, which has been described as “a mix of far-right and far-left anti-Semitic crackpottery,” and features articles such as ‘America’s Jews are Driving America’s Wars’ and ‘What to do with Latinos?’. His own articles include frequent defences of the idea that women are innately less intelligent than men (1, 2, 3, and 4), and an analysis of the racial wage gap which concludes that “some ethnicities contribute relatively little,” namely “blacks.”

Writer and geneticist Adam Rutherford told London Student that, based on the titles and abstracts, some of the views presented were a “pseudoscientific front for bog-standard, old-school racism”.

“As soon as you begin to speak about black people and IQ you have a problem, because genetically-speaking ‘black people’ aren’t one homogenous group,” Rutherford said. “Any two people of recent African descent are likely to be more genetically distinct from each other than either of them is to anyone else in the world.”

Another major organiser of the LCI is Emil Kirkegaard, who has attended all four conferences and even designed the website. Although he refers to himself as a “polymath” and Thompson describes him as a “very bright young guy”, Kirkegaard is not an academic. His highest qualification is a Bachelor’s in linguistics.

Having dropped out of his Masters degree, instead preferring to be “self-taught in various subjects”, Kirkegaard now runs OpenPsych, a platform for non-peer reviewed psychology papers, along with Davide Piffer of Mankind Quarterly. Piffer is a fellow LCI-speaker, and was praised by Richard Lynn as having done “brilliant work identifying the genes responsible for race differences in intelligence.”

Authors on OpenPsych include Kevin MacDonald, described by the Southern Poverty Law Centre as “the neo-Nazi movement’s favourite academic”, who praised Anders Breivik as a “serious political thinker with a great many insights and some good practical ideas on strategy.”

John Fuerst, a fellow of the UISR, spoke at LCI 2015 and 2016, and frequently collaborates with Kirkegaard on OpenPsych. As well as writing various blogs, which he describes as “race realist”, , he also frequently posts anti-Semitic conspiracy theories on Facebook. When questioned about his popularity on the neo-Nazi forum Stormfront, he stated that he had “no beef against…“Neo-Nazis”.”

Kirkegaard’s own personal blog is home to topics such as ‘Is miscegenation bad for your kids?’ and how one could empirically verify a Jewish conspiracy. His Facebook features alt-right ‘promotional videos’ and once featured a friend’s Nazi salute with the caption ‘There will be an heir to the Führer.’

A post on Facebook featuring a Nazi salute behind Kirkegaard alongside his ‘Führer’ comment
By far the most disturbing of part of Kirkegaard’s internet presence, however, is a blog-post in which he justifies child rape. He states that a ‘compromise’ with paedophiles could be:

“having sex with a sleeping child without them knowing it (so, using sleeping medicine. If they dont notice it is difficult to see how they cud be harmed, even if it is rape. One must distinguish between rape becus the other was disconsenting (wanting to not have sex), and rape becus the other is not consenting, but not disconsenting either.”

He qualifies this with a note that “bodily harm” would undermine this justification, and especially “with small children since their bodily openings are not large enuf [sic] for a regular sized male penis. To avoid this one shud [sic] not penetrate.”

Kirkegaard’s reputation as a scientific advocate for neo-Nazism was increased last April when he appeared on Tara McCarthy’s ‘Reality Calls’ to discuss “the future of eugenics.” McCarthy was banned from YouTube for alleging a Jewish conspiracy to commit “white genocide”, supports deporting naturalized citizens and “killing them if they resist”, and said that she hopes “zero” migrants crossing the Mediterranean “make it alive”.

Kirkegaard is not the only LCI speaker to feature on McCarthy’s show. Adam Perkins of King’s College London appeared on the show to discuss his controversial book, ‘The Welfare Trait’. He provoked uproar last year when he shared images of data from one of Kirkegaard’s papers on immigrant crime rates, with the caption “Trump’s Muslim ban makes sense in human capital terms”.

“This is so old-school as to be laughable,” Dr Rutherford said of the views discussed at the LCI. While the views may simply be “bad science”, according to Rutherford, they play into UCL’s “deep and rich history of scientific racism”.

He explained: “Francis Galton, the brilliant but overtly racist UCL academic, may have given the world many valuable ideas, but also created eugenics as a pseudoscientific idea. UCL’s Galton chair, named in his honour, was first occupied by Karl Pearson, another overt racist.”

The first person who linked “overpopulation” to U.S. national security interests was Henry Kissinger, who, as National Security Advisor, oversaw the drafting of National Security Study Memorandum 200, entitled “Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for U.S. Security and Overseas Interests,” which was a highly classified document when it was completed on Dec. 10, 1974.

On Nov. 26, 1975, with Kissinger now Secretary of State, his successor as National Security Advisor, Gen. Brent Scowcroft, issued National Security Decision Memorandum 314, which adopted NSSM 200 as official (covert) U.S. policy on population matters.

Here are excerpts:

One Smart Way to Make Money on the Side in 2018!
Brx Finance
Ads by Revcontent
The World Population Plan of Action is not self-en-forcing and will require vigorous efforts by interested countries, UN agencies and other international bodies to make it effective. U.S. leadership is essential.

Assistance for population moderation should give primary emphasis to the largest and fastest-growing developing countries where there is special U.S. po-litical and strategic interest.

Together, they account for 47% of the world’s current population growth.

The Myth of Overpopulation Used to Force Mass Sterilizations in Developing Nations
Moreover, short of draconian measures there is no possibility that any LDC [Less Developed Country] can stabilize its population at less than double its present size. For many, stabilization will not be short of three times their present size.

Population growth per se is not likely to impose serious constraints on the global physical availability of fuel and non-fuel minerals to the end of the century and beyond.

The important potential linkage between rapid population growth and mineral availability is indirect rather than direct.

It flows from the negative effects of excessive population growth on economic development and social progress, and therefore on internal stability, in overcrowded underdeveloped countries.

The real problems of mineral supplies lie, not in basic physical sufficiency, but in the politico-economic issues of access, terms for exploration and exploitation, and division of the benefits among producers, consumers, and host country governments.

In the extreme cases where population pressures lead to endemic famine, food riots, and breakdown of social order, those conditions are scarcely conducive to systematic exploration for mineral deposits or the long-term investments required for their exploitation.

Source: Humans Are Free_________________--
'Suppression of truth, human spirit and the holy chord of justice never works long-term. Something the suppressors never get.' David Southwell
http://aangirfan.blogspot.comhttp://aanirfan.blogspot.com
Martin Van Creveld: Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: "Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother."
Martin Van Creveld: I'll quote Henry Kissinger: "In campaigns like this the antiterror forces lose, because they don't win, and the rebels win by not losing."

Demographics, Dysgenics & Population Control.
Intro: The Fields of Elysium.

"Instead of recommending cleanliness to the poor, we should encourage contrary habits. In our towns we should make the streets narrower, crowd more people into the houses, and court the return of the plague." — Thomas Malthus (1766-1834)

"If a Black Death could be spread throughout the world once in every generation survivors could procreate freely without making the world too full. There would be nothing in this to offend the consciences of the devout or to restrain the ambitions of nationalists. The state of affairs might be somewhat unpleasant, but what of that? Really high-minded people are indifferent to happiness, especially other people’s." — Bertrand Russell (1872-1970)

The ruling caste has sought to control population since ancient times, through both physical extermination and cultural/ psychological warfare (forcing intellectuals to submit to celibacy for 'religious reasons', etc.), traditionally the ruling families in Europe have arranged for a large conflict every 50-100 years or so, to thin-out the peasantry and in-so-doing sustain their economic (land) and thus cultural monopolies. These blood-lettings are essential, they are the very life-blood of centralisation and the only means of sustaining the socially intolerable and economically inefficient concentrations of wealth and power that certain dynastic families have become accustomed to.

Orchestrated wars and famines are the life-blood that fertilises the fields of their imperial Elysium.

For example the Hapsburg dynasty, instrumental in fomenting the 30 years war (1618 – 1648), which killed one third of the population of Germany, were also protagonists of both world wars and are still a somewhat influential force in the E.U. today. Custodianship over the occulted technologies of statecraft passes from father to son, along with the distinct ‘cultural values’ which have cynically justified these practises since ancient times. The Greeks talked of the need to suppress human imagination (psychological warfare), discussed ‘over-population’ and arranged wars to cull their populations 2500 years ago, and a continuous thread of these genocidal thoughts can be followed from the times of Plato, all the way through the history of civilisation. As foreign kleptocrats conspire with neighbouring dynasties to instigate wars amongst their conquered populations for mutual interest.

Nuclear war, with its 'mutually assured’ and indiscriminate destruction, changed everything. Ever since the Rhine Meadow death camps and the expulsion/ mass-rape of ethnic Germans in 1945-50, which marks the last large-scale genocide in the history of Western Europe - the United Nations, along with various deep state ‘philanthropists’ and their sock-puppet organisations, have focused on ‘passive’ methods of depopulation. Due in no small part to innovations within psychological warfare, mind-control and weaponised anthropology, these methods, which could be described as epigenetic depopulation programs, have proven devastatingly effective. So much so, that nearly every country in the so-called ‘developed’ world is now in a state of sharp demographic collapse. Mass-migration, of more virile stock from the ‘developing world’ simultaneously plugs the gap in the labour market and muddies the statistical waters, helping to cover-up the on-going genocide, which (however passive) remains the largest and most far-reaching genocide in the history of our species.

via Facebook
https://www.facebook.com/thom.forester_________________--
'Suppression of truth, human spirit and the holy chord of justice never works long-term. Something the suppressors never get.' David Southwell
http://aangirfan.blogspot.comhttp://aanirfan.blogspot.com
Martin Van Creveld: Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: "Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother."
Martin Van Creveld: I'll quote Henry Kissinger: "In campaigns like this the antiterror forces lose, because they don't win, and the rebels win by not losing."

(Reuters) - Pope Francis on Saturday called the practice of having an abortion after pre-natal tests have discovered possible birth defects a version of Nazi attempts to create a pure race by eliminating the weakest.

Francis made the comparison in a long, off-the-cuff address to a members of a confederation of Italian family associations.

"Children should be accepted as they come, as God sends them, as God allows, even if at times they are sick," he said.

Francis then spoke of pre-natal tests to determine if a fetus has any illnesses or malformations.

"The first proposal, in that case, is 'Should we get rid of it'? The killing of children. And to have a more tranquil life, an innocent is done away with," he said.

"I say it with pain. In the last century the whole world was scandalized by what the Nazis did to pursue the pureness of the race. Today, we are doing the same thing, with white gloves."

Under Nazi eugenics programs, hundreds of thousands of people were forcibly sterilized and tens of thousands killed in an attempt to "clean" the chain of heredity of those with physical or cognitive disabilities.

(Reporting by Philip Pullella; Editing by Catherine Evans)_________________--
'Suppression of truth, human spirit and the holy chord of justice never works long-term. Something the suppressors never get.' David Southwell
http://aangirfan.blogspot.comhttp://aanirfan.blogspot.com
Martin Van Creveld: Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: "Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother."
Martin Van Creveld: I'll quote Henry Kissinger: "In campaigns like this the antiterror forces lose, because they don't win, and the rebels win by not losing."

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forumYou cannot attach files in this forumYou can download files in this forum